DRUG DEVELOPMENT

AND EVALUATION
YUANDANI

The most common first steps in the development of a new

drug are:
the discovery or synthesis of a potential new drug
compound or the elucidation of a new drug target.

When a new drug molecule is synthesized or

discovered, subsequent steps seek an understanding of
the drugs interactions with its biologic targets.
Repeated application of this approach leads to
compounds with increased efficacy, potency, and selectivity

DRUG DISCOVERY
Most new drugs or drug products are discovered or
developed through the following approaches:
(1)Identification or elucidation of a new drug target;
(2)Rational design of a new molecule based on an
understanding of biologic mechanisms and drug
receptor structure;
(3)screening for biologic activity of large numbers of
natural products, banks of previously discovered
chemical entities, or large libraries of peptides,
nucleic acids, and other organic molecules; and
(4)chemical modification of a known active
molecule, resulting in a me-too analog

 Steps (1) and (2) are

often carried out in
academic research
laboratories,
but the costs of steps
(3) and (4) usually
ensure that industry
carries them out

Once a new drug target

or promising molecule
has been identified,
the process of moving
from the basic science
laboratory to
the clinic begins
This translational
research involves:
o preclinical
o clinical steps

Drug Screening
Regardless of the source or the key idea leading to a
drug candidate molecule, testing it involves a sequence
of experimentation and characterization
called DRUG SCREENING.
A variety of assays at the molecular, cellular, organ
system, and whole animal levels are used to define the
activity and selectivity of the drug.
The type and number of initial screening tests depend on
the pharmacologic and therapeutic goal.

The molecule will also be studied for a broad array of other

actions to determine the mechanism of action and
selectivity of the drug.
This can reveal both expected and unexpected toxic effects.

Studies are performed during drug screening to define

the pharmacologic profile of the drug at the:

molecular,
cellular,
organ,
system, and
organism levels

The value of these tests is

highly dependent on the
reproducibility and
reliability of the
assays.

At the molecular level, the compound would be screened for

activity on the target, for example, receptor binding affinity to
cell membranes
Effects on cell function determine whether the drug is an
agonist, partial agonist, or antagonist at the relevant receptors
Whole animal studies are generally necessary to determine
the effect of the drug on organ systems and disease models
If the agent possessed useful activity, it would be further
studied for possible adverse effects on other major organs,
including the respiratory, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and
central nervous systems

These studies might suggest the need for further chemical

modification (compound optimization) to achieve more
desirable pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties

The desired result of this screening procedure

LEAD COMPOUND

PRECLINICAL SAFETY & TOXICITY

TESTING
All drugs are toxic in some individuals at some dose.
Seeking to correctly define the limiting toxicities of drugs and
the therapeutic index comparing benefits and risks of a new
drug is an essential part of the new drug development process
The goals of preclinical toxicity studies include:
Identifying potential human toxicities,
designing tests to further define the toxic mechanisms,
predicting the most relevant toxicities to be monitored in
clinical trials

SAFETY TEST

several quantitative estimates are desirable:

the no-effect dose
the maximum dose at which a specified toxic effect is not
seen;
the minimum lethal dose
the smallest dose that is observed to kill any experimental
animal;
If necessary, the median lethal dose (LD 50 )
the dose that kills approximately 50% of the animals.

These doses are used to calculate the initial dose to

be tried in humans

the limitations of preclinical testing:

1. Toxicity testing is time-consuming and expensive
2. Large numbers of animals may be needed to
obtain valid preclinical data
3. Extrapolations of therapeutic index and toxicity
data from animals to humans are reasonably
predictive for many but not for all toxicities

EVALUATION IN HUMANS
Less than one third of the drugs tested in
clinical trials reach the marketplace
The need for careful design and execution
is based on three major confounding
factors inherent in the study of any drug in
humans.

Confounding Factors in Clinical Trials

A. The Variable Natural History of Most Diseases
Many diseases tend to wax and wane in severity; some
disappear spontaneously, even, on occasion, cancer.

A good experimental design takes into account the natural

history of the disease by evaluating a large enough
population of subjects over a sufficient period of time.

Further protection against errors of interpretation caused by

disease fluctuations is sometimes provided by using a
crossover design, which consists of alternating periods
of administration of test drug, placebo preparation (the
control), and the standard treatment (positive control),

Confounding Factors in Clinical Trials

B. The Presence of Other Diseases and Risk Factors
Known and unknown diseases and risk factors (including
lifestyles of subjects) may influence the results of a clinical
study.
For example, some diseases alter the pharmacokinetics of
drugs
Other drugs and some foods alter the pharmacokinetics of
many drugs.
Concentrations of blood or tissue components being
monitored as a measure of the effect of the new agent may
be influenced by other diseases or other drugs.

Confounding Factors in Clinical Trials

Attempts to avoid this hazard usually involve the crossover
technique (when feasible) and proper selection and
assignment of patients to each of the study groups.
This requires obtaining accurate diagnostic tests, medical
and pharmacologic histories and the use of statistically
valid methods of randomization in assigning subjects to
particular study groups

Confounding Factors in Clinical Trials

C. Subject and Observer Bias and Other Factors
The placebo response is usually quantitated by
administration of an inert material with exactly the same
physical appearance, odor, consistency, etc, as the active
dosage form.
Subject bias effects can be quantitatedand minimized
relative to the response measured during active therapy
by the single-blind design.
This involves use of a placebo administered to the same
subjects in a crossover design, if possible, or to a separate
control group of well-matched subjects.

 Observer bias can be taken into account by disguising the

identity of the medication being usedplacebo or active
formfrom both the subjects and the personnel evaluating
the subjects responses ( double-blind design).
In this design, a third party holds the code identifying each
medication packet, and the code is not broken until all the
clinical data have been collected.

Confirmation of compliance with protocols (also known

as adherence ) is a necessary element to consider

Clinical Trials

Phase 1
the effects of the drug as a function of dosage are established in a small number
(20100) of healthy volunteers.
Although a goal is to find the maximum tolerated dose, the study is designed to
prevent severe toxicity.
If the drug is expected to have significant toxicity, as may be the case in cancer
and AIDS therapy, volunteer patients with the disease are used in phase 1 rather
than normal volunteers.
Phase 1 trials are done to determine the probable limits of the safe clinical dosage
range
Pharmacokinetic measurements of absorption, half-life, and metabolism are often
done.
Many predictable toxicities are detected in this phase
Phase 1 studies are usually performed in research centers by specially trained
clinical pharmacologists

Phase 2
the drug is studied in patients with the target disease to
determine its efficacy and the doses to be used in any followon trials.
A modest number of patients (100200) are studied in detail.
A single-blind design may be used, with an inert placebo
medication and an established active drug (positive control) in
addition to the investigational agent.
Phase 2 trials are usually done in special clinical centers (eg,
university hospitals).
A broader range of toxicities may be detected in this phase.
Phase 2 trials have the highest rate of drug failures, and only
25% of innovative drugs move on to phase 3.

phase 3
the drug is evaluated in much larger numbers of patients
with the target diseaseusually thousandsto further
establish and confirm safety and efficacy
Phase 3 studies can be difficult to design and execute and
are usually expensive because of the large numbers of
patients involved and the masses of data that must be
collected and analyzed.
The drug is formulated as intended for the market.
If phase 3 results meet expectations, application is made
for permission to market the new agent.
Marketing approval requires submission of a New Drug
Application (NDA) to the FDA

Phase 4
Once approval to market a drug has been obtained,
phase 4 begins.
This constitutes monitoring the safety of the new drug
under actual conditions of use in large numbers of
patients.
The importance of careful and complete reporting of
toxicity by physicians after marketing begins can be
appreciated by noting that many important drug-induced
effects have an incidence of 1 in 10,000 or less and that
some adverse effects may become apparent only after
chronic dosing

The Food & Drug Administration

The FDA is the administrative body that oversees the drug
evaluation process in the USA and grants approval for
marketing of new drug products.
To receive FDA approval for marketing, the originating
institution or company (almost always the latter) must
submit evidence of safety and effectiveness.
Outside the USA, the regulatory and drug approval process is
generally similar to that in the USA.
If a drug has not been shown through adequately
controlled testing to be safe and effective for a specific
use, it cannot be marketed in interstate commerce for this
use